To consider referrals from other bodies (e.g. Cabinet)

 

Members’ Allowances Scheme

 

Members considered recommendations by the Independent Remuneration Panel on the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

 

Councillor Johnson introduced the report and highlighted that the recommendations came from the council’s Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP); they were not the recommendations of his administration. He proposed that Members debate all the recommendations and then vote on them collectively. This was seconded by Councillor Rayner.

 

Councillor Stimson commented that anything in the report that had the semblance of increasing costs should be rejected.

 

Councillor Hilton stated that given the financial situation and COVID, council staff had not received any increase in pay therefore the recommendations made no sense. He had no desire for his own allowances to be increased.

 

Councillor Jones agreed that in light of the financial situation of the council and what residents and staff were seeing at the moment, there were a number of recommendations she could not agree with. She asked whether deferral was an option.

 

The Monitoring Officer advised that if the item were deferred, the recommendations from the IRP would expire. It would involve considerable council resources to start the review process all over again.

 

Councillor Jones proposed amendments to each of the 23 recommendations, with the following comments, details of which were circulated to all councillors:

 

1.    No, leave basic allowance as is. Given the financial situation of the council and the economy at the moment this was not the time for an increase. If the situation changed within the next 4 years then there was the option to revisit the recommendations.

2.    Yes

3.    Agree the basis for the Leader SRA @ 3 times basic 

4.    Agree  maintain at 55% but on agreed rate as per note for 1

5.    Agree maintain at 50% but on agreed rate as per note for 1

6.    Agree maintain at 25% but on agreed rate as per note for 1

7.    Agree be reset at 20% but on agreed rate as per note for 1

8.    Agree

9.    Agree

10.Agree maintain at 20% but on agreed rate as per note for 1

11.Agree

12.Agree

13.Agree but reword to 25% of Leaders SRA to be split proportionately but on agreed rate as per note for 1

14.Agree

15.Agree

16.Agree

17.Agree

18.Agree

19.Agree

20.Agree

21.Agree

22. a) Agree – but deferred for 21/22 and brought back to council each year for decision on whether to go ahead dependent on situation b) Agree c) Agree d) Agree e) Agree

23. Agree apart from including Audit Panel to be implemented from 28 ^October 2020 due to only having had 1 meeting.

 

Councillor Jones conclude that she was aware of the number of hours (at least 30 hours per week) that were carried out by Members and how this may be a barrier for some to be able to put themselves forward as councillors but her view was that this was not the time to address that issue.

 

Councillor Hill seconded the amendments proposed by Councillor Jones. He felt it would be entirely inappropriate for councillors to take an increase at this time.

 

Councillor Johnson commented he felt recommendation 13 was a sensible way forward. His view was that the status quo should remain in relation to the Basic Allowance and the subsequent SRAs, therefore any increases should be rejected.

 

Councillor Werner commented that these were scary times. People who had worked hard all their lives had lost their jobs; others were having their salary halved to keep their job. He did not see how any increase could be justified at this time.  He agreed any increases to the Basic Allowance or any SRA should be rejected. Recommendation 13 would mean he would be the only person to take a significant cut in their allowance; he was very happy for that to be implemented.

 

Councillor Knowles commented that the quantifiable recommendations were all linked from the Basic Allowance and multiples thereof. He believed that all wished for the Basic Allowance to be frozen and therefore the later recommendations would be recalculated with no increase.

 

RESOLVED: That full Councilnotes the report and:

 

i)          Having considered the 23 recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel, agrees that:

 

·         1: The Basic Allowance payable in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead should remain at its current level, £8143

 

·         2: The Basic Allowance continues to cover the range of expenses as currently set out in the Members' Allowances scheme (paragraph 4 of Part 9A of the constitution)

 

·         3: The SRA for the Leader should remain at £24,428

 

·         4: The SRA for the Deputy Leader and Deputy Chairman of the Cabinet should remain at 55% of the Leader’s SRA, £13,434

 

·         5: The SRA for the other Lead (Cabinet) Members should remain at 50% of the Leader’s SRA, £12,215.

 

·         6: The SRA for the Chairmen of the Area Development Management Panels and the Licensing Panel should remain at 25% of the Leader’s SRA, £6,107

 

·         7: The SRA for the Chairmen of Overview and Scrutiny Panels be reset at 20% of the Leader’s SRA, £4,886

 

·         8: The SRA for the Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee be set at 20% of the Leader’s SRA, £4,886.

 

·         9: The number of remunerated Chairmen in this category remains capped as follows:

 

·         Area Development Management Panels:   a maximum of 2

·         Overview and Scrutiny Panels:                  a maximum of 4

·         Licensing Panel:                                        a maximum of 1

 

·           10: The SRA for the Chairman of the Berkshire Pension Fund Panel should remain at 20% of the Leader’s SRA, £4,886

 

·           11: The SRA for Members attending meetings of the Licensing Panel and PSPO Sub-Committee be discontinued. The recommendation to backdate changes to May 2019 would not apply in this instance, i.e. any allowances already paid out since May 2019 would not need to be repaid

 

·           12: The SRA for Members of the Appeals Panel be maintained at £33 per meeting up to three hours and £66 for meetings that last over 3 hours.

 

·           13: The SRA for the Leader of the Main Opposition Group and Leader of Minority Opposition Groups (with at least 5 Members) be removed from the scheme and replaced with one SRA for Opposition Group Leaders of £6,107, to be splitproportionately between Group Leaders based on the number of Members in each Group. The requirement for a minimum number of Members in a Minority Opposition Group to be reset to 3. If approved, the changes should take effect from 28 October 2020 rather than being backdated to May 2019.

 

·           14: No SRA be introduced for Chairmen of Working Groups

 

·           15: The 1-SRA only rule continues to apply in the Members’ Allowances scheme

 

·           16: A Co-optee Allowance should continue to not be included in the Member’s Allowances scheme

 

·           17: Subsistence Allowances should continue to not be included in the Members’ Allowances scheme

 

·           18: The current terms and conditions and the rates payable for Travel Allowances are maintained, subject to the amendments to Schedule 2 detailed in paragraph 100 of the IRP report

 

·           19: The terms and conditions of the Dependants’ Carers’ allowance be maintained, subject to the following amendment:

 

The total amount claimable per approved duty is capped at 5 hours and within any one week a maximum of 20 hours can be claimed to allow for reasonable ‘settling in’ time.

 

·           20: No changes be made to the section on Maternity, Adoption and Paternity Leave in the current scheme.

 

·           21: No changes be made to the Civic Allowances or Mayor/Deputy Mayor SRAs contained in the current scheme.

 

·           22: The following allowances continue or be indexed (up to October 2024) at the following rates:

 

·         Basic Allowance, SRAs, Civic Allowances, and the Financial Loss Allowances: updated annually in line with the average pay increase given to Royal Borough employees (and rounded to the nearest pound as appropriate). Any implementation of this index should continue to be applicable from the same date that it applies to officers. Deferred for 21/22 and brought back to full Council each year for decision on whether to go ahead dependent on situation.

 

·         Mileage Allowance: adjusted on the 1 April each year by reference to the HMRC AMAP (Authorised Mileage Allowance Payments) approved rates.

 

·         Other travel: will be reimbursement of actual costs taking into account the most cost effective means of transport available and the convenience of use.

 

·         Dependants’ Carer’s Allowance: paid at the maximum hourly minimum wage applicable to the age of the carer (who must be 16 years of age or over) or, for carers of dependants on social/medical grounds, the Royal Borough’s average hourly homecare charge

 

·           The adjustments recommended above to be made each year for a period of up to 4 years (November 2020 to October 2024) without the need for a review by the Remuneration Panel, unless such a review is requested by the Panel or the Council.

 

·           23: The recommendations be implemented immediately and backdated to the start of the 2020/21 municipal year, with the exception of proposed changes to Appeals Panel SRAs and those related to Opposition Group Leaders and the Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee, which should be implemented from 28 October 2020.

 

ii)         Where changes to the Members’ Allowance Scheme are approved, delegates authority to the Monitoring Officer to amend the scheme in the council’s constitution.

 

iii)       Where changes to the Members’ Allowance Scheme are approved that increase the costs of the Members’ Allowance Scheme, the Head of Finance be delegated authority to amend the budget for 2020/21 and subsequent years as appropriate.

 

All Members present voted unanimously for the above resolutions, with the following abstentions: Recommendations 8 and 23 – Councillor Bateson; Recommendation 13 - Councillor Jones. As all the amendments were approved, it was agreed that there was no need for a further vote on the recommendations as a whole.

 

Councillor Rayner thanked the members of the Independent Remuneration Panel for the valuable work they had undertaken during the review.

 

Constitutional Amendments

 

Members considered a number of constitutional amendments.

 

Councillor Johnson explained that the recommendations related to the pension fund and the council’s relationship with Achieving for Children.

 

Councillor Bond commented that putting the words ‘pensions’ and ‘governance’ together was a soporific combination, but was important as pensions were based on salary, and if there was any deficit employers had to make it up over time. The fund was worth £2bn. The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) one of the top ten funded schemes in the world.  

 

It was always instructive to listen to the Chair of investment sub-committee because Councillor Hilton was the person with experience of the investment side. The recommendations proposed laying down a layer of governance.  Members of the sub-committee were all Conservative councillors on the parent body therefore the Panel was not losing any individual or their experience.  

 

The proposals were based on an independent governance review undertaken in February and March. There was a lot of detail for the Panel to follow through on. No doubt the author was paid the going rate for his expertise and time spent. It was great that he could attend the recent Panel meeting and give a dispassionate outsider’s view.  

 

Councillor Bond’s own journey started in May, when he had attended an Overview and Scrutiny meeting, one of the first after the reopening for meetings. He had heard about the adverse ISA 260 auditor’s report and the review, and had thought ‘I’m on the Pension Panel aren’t I, why don’t we know about any about this?’ The report was also mentioned in the CIPFA finance and governance report in the summer, so he then started asking to see review.  

 

When the review and recommendations were presented to the Panel a couple of weeks previously, Councillor Bond’s reaction had been twofold: this was a positive first step towards good governance, transparency and accountability, and it told the council what it knew already. Councillor Bond commented that perhaps those councillors who served before May 2019 would say something similar of the CIPFA report itself, that it told them something they already knew. This begged the question: could effective scrutiny have got the council to the same place, a thought for all backbench councillors to ponder for the future.  

 

Councillor Sharpe commented that the proposals were good news from a governance perspective for the pension fund. Adding a Pension Fund Manager was good as this had been a role lacking for a number of years. The proposals also rationalised the way the fund was managed and administered to bring more transparency.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa highlighted that the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead was the administering authority for the Royal County of Berkshire Pension Fund.  RBWM therefore had a statutory duty to maintain the Fund in accordance with The Public Services Pension Schemes Act 2013, associated Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) Regulations and wider pension legislation.  Sadly, over the last 10 years, perhaps more, the conduct had been remiss in many areas resulting in an adverse ISA260 report issued on 6 December 2019 which recommended that an independent review of Pension Fund governance should be undertaken. 

 

This review had been conducted and the changes in governance were those recommended by the independent reviewer, they more appropriately aligned responsibility and authority which was mismatched in the previous arrangement.  Councillor W. Da Costa welcomed them and urged all to approve them. However, whilst some of the governance issues had started to be addressed much more work was needed to ensure open and transparent governance, more open and effective scrutiny and that good decisions were being taken in line with modern best practice. 

 

As the operation of the Pension Panel fell outside the remit of the Executive under the Local Government Act 2000, it was vital that the operation of the panel was apolitical and completely collegiate where all members were equal. To ensure this Councillor W. Da Costa suggested that the chair should be not be a member of the administration. Heavy investment was needed in training of panel members so that they could pilot the plane through the stormy weather the multibillion pension fund faced. More openness was needed with regard to scrutiny and allowing members of the public, and employees and their representatives, to ask questions. 

 

The council could not afford to be complacent with the responsibility as the lives and retirements of too many people depended on the fund.

 

Councillor Rayner commented that she had attended a recent Pension Fund Panel meeting and she had been impressed at how they were addressing the issues. It was a robust panel and she recommended the report.

 

Councillor Johnson welcomed the contributions made by Members during the debate. The recommendations would strengthen the internal processes and also outcomes including the ability to make flexible but robust decisions.

 

Councillor Hilton confirmed that the recommendations were agreed by the Pension Fund panel at its meeting on 19 October 2020, as this had taken place after the full Council agenda had been published. 

 

It was proposed by Councillor Johnson, seconded by Councillor Rayner and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Councilnotes the report and:

 

i)          Following the recommendation by the Berkshire Pension Fund Panel at its meeting on 19 October 2020, approves amendments to the constitution detailed in Appendix A in relation to the governance structures of the Berkshire Pension Fund.

ii)         Approves amendments to the constitution detailed in Appendix B, and notes the proposed terms of reference of the AfC Ownership Board as detailed in Appendix C, in relation to the governance structures of Achieving for Children. Changes to the constitution to be made subject to subsequent agreement to the governance changes by London Borough of Richmond and Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames during November and December 2020 respectively.

iii)       Delegates authority to the Monitoring Officer to update as appropriate and publish the council constitution.

 

Approval of Additional Capital Schemes

 

Members considered approval of a number of additions to the capital programme.

 

Councillor Hilton explained that as full Council approved the capital programme in February each year as part of the budget setting process, any changes in-year required full Council approval. Six capital schemes were covered in the report; Members would be familiar with the details as the schemes had all been debated and approved at Cabinet in July or September 2020.

 

Councillor Jones asked if any other schools than Larchfield required safeguarding improvements and whether or not this was a priority. She also asked if she was right that the council was originally going to pay the Braywick Leisure Centre scheme out of funds but now S106 money and grant funding was available.

 

Councillor Price requested a definition of the term ‘fully funded’.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that if other schools required safeguarding works, the Lead Member for Children’s Services would be aware. He confirmed that in relation to Braywick, nothing had changed and the funding sources were as reported in the July financial update. He clarified that the term ‘fully funded’ meant that external funding that fully covered the costs of a particular scheme. Councillor Hilton highlighted that the scheme relating to Bisham General Refurbishment included a virement; this involved money that would have been spent by the council being moved to within the school’s responsibility.

 

Councillor Johnson welcomed the continued investment in schools and transportation, to drive forward economic growth in the long term. The new leisure centre trust was taking great strides despite difficult conditions. He commented that any future schemes would be considered in a conservative climate. The days of large scale spending on capital projects not fully funded were long gone.

 

Councillor Hilton concluded that any future schemes would require a business case supporting any funding.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor Johnson and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council approves the following capital schemes:

 

i)     A capital budget addition of £110,000 for Safeguarding works at Larchfield Primary School.

ii)    A fully funded capital budget addition of £500,000 for SEND Special Provision

iii)  A virement of £200,000 from the Secondary Expansions Risk Contingency to Bisham General Refurbishment.

iv)  A fully funded capital budget addition of £87,000 for a Wider Area Growth Study.

v)    A fully funded capital budget addition of£140,000 for the Emergency Active Travel Fund.

vi)  A fully funded capital budget addition of £381,000 for design and construction changes to Braywick Leisure Centre.

 

Corporate Parenting Annual Report 2019/20

 

Members considered the 2019/20 Annual Report on Corporate Parenting.

 

Councillor Carroll explained that he was presenting the report as Chairman of the Corporate Parenting Forum. Corporate Parenting was the collective responsibility of the council and its partners. The Corporate Parenting strategy had been refreshed in 2019 in partnership with Kickback and endorsed by full Council. The strategy outlined four key priorities:

 

?     Working together with young people, councillors, professionals and partner services;

?     Listening to our children and young people and act on their views and ensuring they know what to expect from us;

?     Ensuring all professionals and elected members are aware of their corporate parenting responsibilities;

?     Supporting and encouraging our Children in Care and Care Leavers to achieve their full potential.

 

The Forum brought together elected Members and partner organisations with some of the Children in Care. One of the most positive aspects was that the children controlled the agenda; one example was an activity to simulate being a child in care when all forum members had their personal belongings removed and locked away for the duration of the meeting. The seriousness with which corporate parenting was taken was recognised in the latest Ofsted report, which also commented on the excellent format of meetings and that the children felt confident to speak their mind.

 

Councillor Tisi congratulated the officers, Lead Member, committee members and young people who had worked hard over the last two years to develop the forum. She had found it to be a refreshing change from other more formal meetings. The meeting was now held in an informal room, all participants tried to avoid using jargon and the young people drove the agenda.  The young people spoke up and forced the councillors and officers to question their motions and actions.

 

Councillor Clark echoed the comments by Councillor Tisi. It was a privilege to be involved in the Forum. He encouraged all councillors to look at their responsibilities as a corporate parent and attend a meeting. As Chairman Councillor Carroll had done an excellent job. All agreed the forum was progressive and open and a vehicle for positive change.

 

Councillor Davey suggested all councillors be invited to the proposed awards ceremony. He asked for the Appendix to the report to be circulated to all councillors.

 

Councillor C. Da Costa commented that the forum was progressive and truly cross-party. The young people involved were very impressive and a credit to the borough. She encouraged all councillors to get involved and get to know them.

 

Councillor Price commented that she had responded to the open invitation to all councillors and attended a Kickback meeting. She had been very impresses at how self-assured the young people were. She urged others to attend a Kickback or Forum meeting.

 

Councillor Carroll thanked all the Members of the forum, including the officers who did a tremendous job at supporting the young people.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Carroll, seconded by Councillor Tisi and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Council notes the annual report from the Corporate Parenting Forum